Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Articles 14 & 16, Constitution of India – Upholding High Court Order – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that excluding a reserved category candidate, despite securing marks higher than the cut-off for the General/Open category, solely on account of their category, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The Court emphasized that the placement of a more meritorious reserved category candidate in the Open category is not a facet of reservation but a principle of equality founded on merit – Confining such candidates to their reserved slot amounts to impermissible discrimination – The High Court's direction to prepare the General/Open category list strictly on merit, including all such reserved category candidates who could compete without availing any special benefit, was affirmed – This ensures that merit is preserved across categories and reservation functions as a means of inclusion – The Court rejected the argument that such inclusion constitutes a "double benefit" or "migration" at an intermediate stage of selection – The selection process for Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II involved a written test and a typewriting test – Reserved category candidates who scored above the general category cut-off were initially confined to their respective reserved lists, leading to higher cut-offs in some reserved categories than in the general category – The Supreme Court clarified that the "open" category is accessible to all candidates based on merit, irrespective of social classification – [Paras 20, 22, 25, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 72, 75].

Service Law – Estoppel – Challenge to Selection Process – The Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel does not operate as a bar against candidates challenging a selection process if the challenge pertains to a misconstruction of statutory rules or a violation of constitutional principles – While candidates generally cannot challenge a process after participating and failing, this rule is not absolute when the illegality in the procedure was not known despite due diligence or surfaced only after completion of the process – In this case, the advertisement did not indicate that meritorious reserved category candidates would not be treated as General/Open category candidates even if they outscored the latter – The illegality lay in the appellants' action of not treating such candidates as General/Open, despite their superior performance – Therefore, the petitioning candidates were not estopped from challenging the process – [Paras 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Service Law – Migration of Reserved Category Candidates – Multi-tier Selection Process – The Court clarified that the concept of "migration" of a reserved category candidate to the general category applies when such a candidate secures marks higher than the general category cut-off without availing any special concession or relaxation – This principle is applicable at every stage where merit is assessed and shortlisting is undertaken, not just at the final appointment stage – The written examination in this case was an integral and substantive component of the selection process, carrying significant weight, distinguishing it from a mere preliminary/screening test where marks are not carried forward – The inclusion of a meritorious reserved category candidate in the open merit list at the shortlisting stage is purely merit-based and does not constitute "migration" in the sense of availing a benefit – [Paras 30, 40, 50, 56, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The impugned order of the High Court is upheld – The High Court may endeavor not to dislodge employees in position while considering the cases of the petitioning candidates – Time to comply with the impugned order is extended by two months from date – [Paras 76, 77, 79].

Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – High Court reversed acquittal of five accused (A-1 to A-4 and A-10) and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and supported by circumstantial links such as weapon recovery and sniffer dog trail – FIR registered promptly and attributed overt acts to main accused – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate held to be satisfactorily explained – Trial court’s findings found to be speculative and based on illusory contradictions [Paras 2, 4-5, 40-45, 48-51].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses – Credibility – PWs 1 and 2 (brother-in-law and brother of the deceased) found to be natural and reliable witnesses – Their failure to intervene during the fatal attack justified due to real threat of harm – Minor inconsistencies treated as non-fatal – Court reaffirms duty to sift grain from chaff in witness testimony, especially in Indian context [Paras 34-38, 40, 46].

Medical Jurisprudence – Post-Mortem Report – Eleven incised and lacerated wounds recorded, including severed wrist and deep neck wounds – Medical evidence corroborated oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and FIR – Timing of post-mortem ruled out possibility of FIR manipulation – Defence’s argument regarding absence of rolling injuries found to be irrelevant embroidery [Paras 5, 43-44, 48, 50].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Ninja chain and 9 sickles recovered pursuant to disclosure – Sniffer dog tracing to A-4’s house – Physical evidence supports premeditated attack and shared common intention – Motive proved through prior feuds and earlier FIRs [Paras 5, 27, 41, 47].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – High Court’s approach upheld – Trial court's acquittal held to be based on erroneous appreciation of evidence – No perversity in findings of High Court – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 6-7, 32, 51-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentences of A-1 to A-4 and A-10 upheld – No ground for interference found by Supreme Court.

Environmental Law – Endangered Species – Habitat Conservation – Protection of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Petition under Article 32 sought urgent directions for the conservation of critically endangered GIB and LF species – Court affirmed the Expert Committee’s recommendation to designate revised priority areas in Rajasthan (14,013 sq. km) and Gujarat (740 sq. km) – Mitigation measures for conservation including habitat restoration, creation of enclosures, and predator control accepted – Ordered immediate implementation of in-situ and ex-situ conservation strategies, supported by long-term climate monitoring [Paras 1–6, 24–26, 32, 76].

Renewable Energy – Power Infrastructure – Undergrounding and Mitigation – Blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines lifted by Court’s March 2024 order – Expert Committee formed to assess area-specific solutions – Court accepted recommendations for undergrounding or rerouting powerlines (66kV and above), creation of powerline corridors, and limited exemptions for 11kV and below – Ordered that critical 250 km lines in Rajasthan be undergrounded within 2 years [Paras 14, 24, 44, 71, 76].

Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) – Efficacy and Scientific Scrutiny – Petitioners sought mandatory BFDs across all existing/future lines – Expert Committee concluded their efficacy for bustards is unproven and recommended pilot study by WII – Court agreed and directed Wildlife Division, MoEFCC to evaluate effectiveness through scientific studies and pilot projects before large-scale implementation [Paras 60–63, 76].

Corporate Environmental Responsibility – Expansion of CSR – Supreme Court declared that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under Section 135 of the Companies Act must include "Corporate Environmental Responsibility" – Affirmed that CSR funds can and should be used for GIB conservation – Ecocentric interpretation of statutory duties emphasized – Recognized corporations as duty-bearers under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution [Paras 35–40].

Public Interest vs. Development – Balancing Sustainability and Biodiversity – Court upheld the Committee’s calibrated approach balancing India’s climate commitments with species conservation – Restrictions on new solar projects (>2MW), new wind turbines, and overhead lines in Revised Priority Areas affirmed – Site-specific case-by-case mitigation adopted in lieu of blanket bans [Paras 14–15, 65–67, 76].

Decision: Writ Petition and Civil Appeal allowed in part – Expert Committee’s revised priority area designations accepted – Committee recommendations on conservation and mitigation to be implemented – 250 km of critical lines to be undergrounded within 2 years – Petitioners’ additional requests (such as expanding area to include Rasla enclave) rejected – All authorities directed to optimize transmission line corridors, enforce restrictions, and conduct further study on BFD efficacy [Paras 76–77].

Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act – Statutory Exemption under Section 22 – GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 – Appellant’s passport expired during pendency of criminal proceedings before NIA Court and appeal against conviction before Delhi High Court – Criminal courts granted no objection for renewal subject to condition of prior permission for foreign travel and re-deposit of passport – Passport Authority refused renewal treating Section 6(2)(f) as absolute bar – Held: Section 6(2)(f) is subject to statutory exemption under Section 22 and GSR 570(E) – Once criminal courts consciously permit renewal while retaining control over travel, embargo under Section 6(2)(f) stands relaxed – Refusal of renewal unsustainable [Paras 12–16, 25].

Passports Act, 1967 – Interpretation of GSR 570(E) – Requirement of “permission to depart from India” – Whether specific foreign travel itinerary mandatory – Held: GSR 570(E) does not mandate that criminal court must authorise a particular journey as a precondition for renewal – Court may legitimately permit renewal of passport while requiring prior permission for each instance of travel – Such arrangement satisfies statutory object of securing presence of accused – Narrow interpretation adopted by High Court disapproved [Paras 10–15, 16].

Criminal Proceedings – Pending Trial and Conviction under Appeal – Distinction between Section 6(2)(f) and Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act – Appellant convicted in CBI case with sentence suspended – Held: Section 6(2)(f) applies at pre-conviction stage – After conviction, case falls under Section 6(2)(e) subject to its own conditions – Subsisting conviction under appeal cannot be used to reinforce bar under Section 6(2)(f) – Reliance placed on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI [Paras 18–19].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Passport as Civil Document – Proportionality of Restrictions – Denial of renewal of passport despite judicial permissions held to be disproportionate and unreasonable – Legitimate purpose of ensuring presence before court adequately safeguarded by bail conditions and court supervision – Indefinite denial of passport impermissible [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Enforcement of Statutory Obligation – High Court erred in holding that writ petition amounted to execution of criminal court orders – Writ sought enforcement of rights flowing from Passports Act and exemption notification – Passport Authority bound to act in accordance with statute and GSR 570(E) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Respondents directed to re-issue ordinary passport to appellant for normal period of ten years – Passport to remain subject to existing and future orders of NIA Court, Ranchi and Delhi High Court, including condition of prior permission before leaving India – Compliance directed within four weeks [Paras 28–30].

Service Law – Regularization – Ad-hoc Appointments – Discrimination – Appellants appointed to Class III posts in High Court as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants under powers of Chief Justice – Though similarly situated persons were regularized, appellants denied such benefit citing their appointments were ad-hoc – Held: All categories of appointees were appointed through same channel under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules – Mere difference in wording of appointment orders not sufficient ground to treat them differently – Distinction drawn by administrative committee was arbitrary and violated Article 14 – Directions issued under Article 142 for reinstatement and regularization [Paras 23–28, 30–34].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Arbitrary Discrimination – Supreme Court held that all appointees appointed through same legal authority and performing same duties must be treated equally – Classification based on labels such as "ad-hoc" or absence of examination clause in appointment letters is irrational when nature of work and source of power are identical – Denial of regularization violated principles of non-arbitrariness [Paras 24–29].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Appellants rendered over a decade of service before discontinuation – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to restore their services and direct regularization with consequential benefits (excluding back wages), overriding technical objections of procedural limitations or rule amendments – Relief restricted to facts of this case [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court orders set aside – Appellants to be reinstated and regularized with all consequential benefits (excluding salary for non-working period) – Compliance directed within 8 weeks – Relief not to be treated as precedent [Paras 34–36].

Income Tax – Non-Compete Fee – Revenue or Capital Expenditure – Section 37(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Assessee paid non-compete fee to joint-venture partner to restrain it from competing in electronic office products business for a fixed period – Assessing Officer and Delhi High Court held expenditure to be capital in nature – Supreme Court examined tests of enduring benefit, capital field and profit-earning apparatus – Held: Non-compete fee merely facilitates carrying on of business more efficiently and profitably – No new asset created nor any accretion to profit-earning structure – Enduring advantage, if any, not in capital field – Payment is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) [Paras 25–29].

Capital vs Revenue Expenditure – Enduring Benefit Test – Limits – Court reiterated that enduring benefit test is not conclusive – What is material is whether advantage lies in capital field – Payments made to ward off competition without creation of capital asset or monopoly fall on revenue account – Length of restrictive period not determinative – Focus must be on commercial reality of transaction [Paras 18–28].

Non-Compete Fee – No Acquisition of Capital Asset – Payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of any tangible or intangible asset nor expansion of profit-earning apparatus – Competition not eliminated altogether – Assessee only secured operational efficiency – Held not capital expenditure [Paras 26–28].

Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee – Section 32(1)(ii) – Since non-compete fee itself held to be revenue expenditure, question of allowing depreciation as intangible asset rendered redundant in case of Sharp Business System – However, appeals of other assessees involving depreciation issue remanded to ITATs to be reconsidered in light of law declared [Paras 31–34].

Judicial Discipline – Conflicting High Court Views – Resolution by Supreme Court – Delhi High Court view treating non-compete fee as capital expenditure set aside – Consistent judicial trend emphasising commercial expediency and absence of capital asset reaffirmed – Matters involving depreciation remitted for fresh adjudication consistent with this judgment [Paras 29–34].

Interest on Borrowed Funds – Investment in Subsidiary / Sister Concern – Section 36(1)(iii) – Assessee invested borrowed funds in subsidiary company to acquire controlling interest and advanced interest-free loans to sister concern and directors – Assessing Officer disallowed interest alleging non-business purpose – ITAT and High Court allowed deduction applying doctrine of commercial expediency – Supreme Court affirmed – Held: Once investment/advances are made for commercial expediency, interest on borrowed funds is allowable – Revenue cannot substitute its business judgment for that of assessee – Reliance placed on SA Builders Ltd. [Paras 35–41].

Commercial Expediency – Controlling Interest – Investment in subsidiary to obtain controlling interest constitutes business purpose – Interest deduction allowable even if immediate profit not earned – Advances to sister concern covered by commercial expediency on facts [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014 allowed – Non-compete fee held to be revenue expenditure – Delhi High Court judgment set aside – Remaining appeals relating to non-compete fee and depreciation remanded to respective ITATs for fresh consideration – Revenue appeal on interest disallowance dismissed – Deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) upheld

Criminal Law – IPC and ITPA - Child Trafficking – Minor Victim – Commercial Sexual Exploitation – Appellant convicted for keeping minor girl in rented premises for prostitution – Decoy operation by NGO workers led to rescue of minor – Testimony of minor victim (PW-13) found credible, consistent, and corroborated by witnesses PW-8, PW-11, PW-12 and seizure of condom and marked currency – Defence’s denial of relationship with victim rejected – Held: Offences under IPC and ITPA proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–6, 8–13].

Victim Testimony – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court lays out principles for evaluating testimony of trafficked minors – Emphasized need for latitude and sensitivity due to victim’s socio-economic vulnerability, fear, trauma, and organised nature of crime – Held: Victim is not an accomplice – Sole credible testimony of minor victim sufficient for conviction – Reliance placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [Para 11].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Victim’s age proved as 16 years 6 months based on school certificate (Ex. P-3) issued by PW-7 (Headmaster) – Court reaffirmed that school records prevail over medical opinion – Ossification test not mandatory when documentary proof exists – Relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [Para 14].

Procedural Law – ITPA – Validity of Search – Compliance with Section 15(2) – Objection raised regarding absence of respectable woman from locality during raid – Court held that decoy witnesses (PW-8 and PW-12) were credible, and PW-14 (owner’s wife) was approached – Her hostility does not vitiate compliance – Reiterated that non-compliance with S. 15(2) is irregularity, not illegality, unless it causes prejudice – Conviction sustained [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and ITPA upheld – Statutory provisions substantially complied with – Testimony of victim reliable and corroborated – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of courts below [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – High Court quashed complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act holding that the cheque was not issued for any debt or liability – Held: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining disputed facts at pre-trial stage and conducting a roving enquiry into the existence of debt/liability – Complaint disclosed all essential ingredients of Section 138 – Prima facie case made out – Quashing was impermissible [Paras 5, 8, 11-13, 18].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption under Section 139 – High Court not justified in rebutting statutory presumption of debt at threshold stage – Presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt – Can only be rebutted during trial – Trial is the proper stage to raise such defence – Complaint could not be quashed merely on the plea that no debt existed [Paras 13-15, 18].

Precedents – Application of Legal Principles – Court reaffirmed principles laid down in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Interference at threshold discouraged when presumption exists and trial stage is yet to commence [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court quashing the complaint set aside – Criminal complaint restored on file of Magistrate to be decided as per law – No opinion expressed on merits of cheque issuance [Paras 19-20].

Bail – Grant of Bail by High Court – Annulment of Bail Order – Respondents accused of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act – Earlier bail cancelled due to misuse of liberty and murder of prime injured witness while on bail – High Court granted bail again without considering prior cancellation and supervening circumstances – Held: Bail order vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness and non-application of mind – Ignoring prior bail cancellation and demonstrated abuse of liberty renders the order unsustainable – Bail annulled [Paras 12–12.5, 14].

SC/ST (POA) Act – Victim’s Right to be Heard – Section 15A(5) – Mandatory Nature – Appellant contended that objections of victim were not considered while granting bail – Held: Section 15A(5) mandates opportunity of hearing, not acceptance of submissions – Once victim is notified and heard, statutory requirement stands satisfied – Bail cannot be cancelled merely for absence of detailed discussion of objections – No violation of Section 15A(5) made out [Paras 11–11.10].

Criminal Law – Misuse of Bail – Witness Intimidation and Elimination – Accused, while on bail in attempt to murder case, allegedly committed murder of prime injured witness – Subsequent FIR under Section 302 IPC registered – Bail earlier cancelled on this ground – Held: Death of material witness and intimidation strike at the root of fair trial – High Court failed to evaluate this determinative factor – Serious threat to administration of justice established [Paras 10, 12.1].

Bail Jurisprudence – Cancellation vs Annulment of Bail – Distinction Explained – Cancellation based on post-bail misconduct – Annulment justified where initial bail order is illegal or perverse – Held: Present case falls within annulment category as High Court ignored gravity of offence, antecedents, prior bail cancellation and societal impact – Superior court justified in setting aside bail [Paras 12, 12.5].

Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – Gravity and Societal Impact – Allegations of caste-based abuse and armed assault – Requirement of strict scrutiny at bail stage – High Court failed to consider seriousness of offences and impact on marginalised community – Held: Mechanical grant of bail in such cases impermissible [Paras 12.2, 12.5].

Joint Trial – Separate FIRs – Distinct Occurrences – Direction for Joint Trial at Bail Stage – Crime No. 39 of 2020 (attempt to murder) and Crime No. 202 of 2022 (murder of witness) arise from different transactions, different years and distinct factual foundations – Held: Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C. and Section 242 BNSS – Joint trial permissible only if statutory conditions satisfied – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing joint trial at bail stage – Direction unsustainable [Paras 13–13.7].

Decision: Criminal appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.04.2025 set aside – Bail granted to respondents/accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender before trial Court within two weeks – Trial Court to proceed independently on merits – Direction for joint trial quashed [Paras 14–15].